[af_vet_1981]

It does not agree with the KJV overall for it does not show supplied words, which the KJV usually does (normally by italics), as shown by my example (out of vast multitudes) Job 34:10:

Italics ? That is the objection ?

The English translation is the same but the font is different and therefore one who does not read Hebrew cannot discern a word for word translation that is not even feasible anyway because languages differ and that is the nature of translation ?

What a seque for the idea of Sola Scriptura and which Scriptura and whose translation(s) ...

[daniel1212]

Italics ? That is the objection ? The English translation is the same but the font is different and therefore one who does not read Hebrew cannot discern a word for word translation that is not even feasible anyway because languages differ and that is the nature of translation ? What a seque for the idea of Sola Scriptura and which Scriptura and whose translation(s) ...

You have to know better than that the issue is a mere difference in fonts, and which is of no significance! The differences in fonts is the very thing that enables one to see that such are not in the original language, and the differences in language does not marginalize that, as shown. That is why scholars prefer word for word type translations, versus "dynamic equivalence" and examine the original language texts.

Why can't you simply admit that your source is not as helpful and accurate as what i provided, instead of desperately having me being against the Jews and blithely dismissing the importance of finding supplied words versus what is in the original language texts? Give it up!

[Elsie]

What a seque for the idea of Sola Scriptura and which Scriptura and whose translation(s) ...

Watch it!

You'll snap necks in this sudden steering away from the topic at hand.